成唯識論述記 2.786

2.786

The Commentary states: This is Dharmapāla's explanation: because the darśanabhāga constantly takes them as object, they are the nimittabhāga; that is, they are functional, semantic divisions of the substance of consciousness, and therefore constitute the nimittabhāga. Tathatā is also the self-verification of consciousness and should be the nimittabhāga, but tathatā is subsumed under the real nature of consciousness; since it is called 'markless,' it is not like seeds, for seeds are not the real nature of consciousness, and therefore they are the nimittabhāga. Tathatā is merely subsumed under the nature of consciousness, and its substance is truly devoid of marks; the darśanabhāga only does not cognize the self-substance of consciousness. As for Master Candragupta, it is now explained: in the formless realm, because there is no internal bodily form and one previously felt revulsion toward form, it is provisionally said that it cognizes seeds, leaving the receptacle form undiscussed. The text of the Yogācārabhūmi is not exhaustive according to principle. According to old traditions, Master Candragupta [held that] seeds abide solely depending on the darśanabhāga of consciousness, and the sākṣātkāribhāga cognizes only three parts. When fascicle 51 of the Yogācārabhūmi says that for those born in the formless realm, the eighth consciousness only cognizes internal seeds, this is stated in terms of the object cognized by the sākṣātkāribhāga. If so, for non-returner noble ones and others born in the formless realm, what does the darśanabhāga of the eighth consciousness take as its object? For they will certainly not be born in the desire or form realms. Although they will not be born there, it is allowed that it cognizes them generally, as will be discerned below. From here below is the sixth, differentiation of the three natures.